BACKGROUND: The use of oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in evaluating biochemical control in acromegalic patients on somatostatin analogues (SSA) has recently been questioned. AIM: To gain further insights into this topic, we analyzed basal and nadir GH levels during OGTT in acromegalic patients on SSA. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Basal IGF-I and GH values, as well as GH levels along the test, were analyzed in 115 standard OGTT performed in 33 acromegalic patients followed up between 1993 and 2009. All patients were on SSA at the time of the study; 22 of them had previously undergone unsuccessful surgery. No patient had undergone radiotherapy. GH suppression was considered normal when the hormonal value fell to <1 μg/l during OGTT. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: ROC analysis showed that the GH basal value yielding the best specificity (100%) was 3.9 μg/l. All patients with basal GH>3.9 μg/l displayed lack of GH suppression after OGTT and 80% also displayed high IGF-I. Conversely, patients with basal GH<3.9 μg/l presented a variable biochemical pattern with half of them failing to suppress GH after OGTT and 36.6% displaying high IGF-I levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that baseline GH levels >3.9 μg/l are predictive of absent OGTT-dependent GH suppression; however, 20% of these patients display partial biochemical control (normal IGF-I levels). On the other hand, basal GH values <3.9 μg/l are not predictive of GH suppressibility by glucose and are often discordant with IGF-I levels.
BACKGROUND: The use of oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in evaluating biochemical control in acromegalicpatients on somatostatin analogues (SSA) has recently been questioned. AIM: To gain further insights into this topic, we analyzed basal and nadir GH levels during OGTT in acromegalicpatients on SSA. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Basal IGF-I and GH values, as well as GH levels along the test, were analyzed in 115 standard OGTT performed in 33 acromegalicpatients followed up between 1993 and 2009. All patients were on SSA at the time of the study; 22 of them had previously undergone unsuccessful surgery. No patient had undergone radiotherapy. GH suppression was considered normal when the hormonal value fell to <1 μg/l during OGTT. Diagnostic accuracy was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: ROC analysis showed that the GH basal value yielding the best specificity (100%) was 3.9 μg/l. All patients with basal GH>3.9 μg/l displayed lack of GH suppression after OGTT and 80% also displayed high IGF-I. Conversely, patients with basal GH<3.9 μg/l presented a variable biochemical pattern with half of them failing to suppress GH after OGTT and 36.6% displaying high IGF-I levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that baseline GH levels >3.9 μg/l are predictive of absent OGTT-dependent GH suppression; however, 20% of these patients display partial biochemical control (normal IGF-I levels). On the other hand, basal GH values <3.9 μg/l are not predictive of GH suppressibility by glucose and are often discordant with IGF-I levels.
Authors: S Melmed; F Casanueva; F Cavagnini; P Chanson; L A Frohman; R Gaillard; E Ghigo; K Ho; P Jaquet; D Kleinberg; S Lamberts; E Laws; G Lombardi; M C Sheppard; M Thorner; M L Vance; J A H Wass; A Giustina Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: M Sherlock; A Aragon Alonso; R C Reulen; J Ayuk; R N Clayton; G Holder; M C Sheppard; A Bates; P M Stewart Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2008-10-26 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: R Cozzi; R Attanasio; S Grottoli; G Pagani; P Loli; V Gasco; A M Pedroncelli; M Montini; E Ghigo Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Pamela U Freda; Abu T Nuruzzaman; Carlos M Reyes; Robert E Sundeen; Kalmon D Post Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: S Melmed; A Colao; A Barkan; M Molitch; A B Grossman; D Kleinberg; D Clemmons; P Chanson; E Laws; J Schlechte; M L Vance; K Ho; A Giustina Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 5.958